Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:33:50 +0200 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> To: Fred Clift <fclift@verio.net> Cc: alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: call for testers: busdma-ified fxp(4) driver Message-ID: <20030402163350.GI1750@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20030402090802.Y82002-400000@vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net> References: <20030401134113.GC1750@elvis.mu.org> <20030402090802.Y82002-400000@vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Fred Clift wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > > > My fxp(4) patch should now be nearly commit ready. > ... > > > someone with an alpha box and a fxp(4) card could test this patch > > > > Sorry to follow-up to myself, but this patch had some bogus and > > irrelevant diffs in it. I'm attaching a fixed one now. It can also be > > found at http://mu.org/~mux/patches/if_fxp.patch. > > Well, the patch seems to work just fine - better performance now in fact. > > I did a bunch of scp/ftp type stuff of big and a bunch of small files just > to ensure everyting was working and then I used /usr/ports/net/netperf to > try and characterize performance a bit. After you install the port there > is a script /usr/local/netperf/snapshot_script that tries to give a > reasonable snapshot of network performance under a variety of conditions, > and with a few different parameters... The target machine was a 400Mhz > pentium II box (sadly, this and the alpha are the two fastest machines I > own...) with '4.7-STABLE FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE #5: Mon Nov 11 12:15:39 MST > 2002' (+ a few security patches) with a newer fxp card > > fxp0@pci0:9:0: class=0x020000 card=0x000c8086 chip=0x12298086 rev=0x08 > hdr=0x00 > > Both of these boxes plugged into an SMC 10/100 switch... I would have > just used a cross-over cable except I forgot to bring it with me and > didn't feel like making one. > > Attached to this email you'll find the output of snapshot_script for the > old driver (about two weeks old cvsup), the output of the modified driver, > and the output of the script run on the integrated dc NIC, just for fun > and comparison. > > Some sample results at one particular set of parameters: > > before: throughput in 10^6 bits/sec 39.18 > after: throughput in 10^6 bits/sec 94.11 > (dc): throughput in 10^6 bits/sec 70.97 > > > Honestly I'm suprised there is so much difference between the before and > after and I'm doubting my testing methodology -- perhaps I had the duplex > set wrong on the alpha on the 'before'? shrug. I didn't shut down, or > change at all, the target test box between the two tests. At any rate, the > patch seems to work fine on my alpha on the one card I had time to test > (older, slightly larger formfactor etherexpress pro 100). If you can wait > till tomorrow, I can probably squeeze in time for testing one or two other > fxp hardware revs I have... > > The card I did test on shows up as this: > > pciconf -v -l > ... > fxp0@pci1:8:0: class=0x020000 card=0x00098086 chip=0x12298086 rev=0x04 > hdr=0x00 > vendor = 'Intel Corporation' > device = '82557/8/9 EtherExpress PRO/100(B) Ethernet Adapter' > class = network > subclass = ethernet > ... Great, many thanks to you for testing this! I'm also very surprised about that huge performance improvement, I just can't see how this patch could improve performance :-). If you feel like and have time to do some more performance testing, that would be very interesting. I'm going to commit this patch now. Cheers, Maximehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030402163350.GI1750>